Is There a Material Kuznets Curve for Material Footprint? Example of G-7 Countries

Abstract

The relationship between growth and income distribution was revealed by Kuznets in 1955, and this relationship was applied to different fields over time. In the early 1990s, it was understood that there was a strong relationship between the environment and economic growth, and the Environmental Kuznets Curve approach was proposed. In the following process, many variables representing environmental pollution were modeled separately and the Environmental Kuznets Curve was tested and various Kuznets Curves were brought to the literature. In the last few years, a new one has been added to these and the Material Kuznets Curve approach has started to take place in the literature. The Material Kuznets curve approach suggests that there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between material footprint and per capita gross domestic product. In this respect, it is aimed to test the validity of the material Kuznets curve approach in this study. In order to achieve this purpose, the data of the G-7 countries for the period 1990-2016 are used. In the creation of the model, the material footprint variable is considered as the dependent variable, and environmental pollution for material use is evaluated collectively. Per capita GDP, per capita GDP2 and per capita GDP3 are the selected independent variables. As a result of the Panel Durbin Hausman cointegration test, it is determined that there is no relationship between the variables as Kuznets stated, and thus the material Kuznets curve approach is rejected within the scope of the study.

Keywords

• Material Footprint
• Material Kuznets Curve
• Environmental Kuznets Curve

Malzeme Kuznets Eğrisi Malzeme Ayak İzi İçin Geçerli Mi? G-7 Ülkeleri Örneği

Öz

1955’de Kuznets tarafından büyüme ve gelir dağılımı arasındaki ilişki ortaya konulmuş, bu ilişki zamanla farklı alanlara da uygulanmıştır. 1990’lı yılların başında çevre ile ekonomik büyüme arasında güçlü bir ilişkinin olduğu anlaşılmış ve Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi yaklaşımı ileri sürülmüştür. İzleyen süreçte çevre kirliliğini temsil eden birçok değişken ayrı ayrı modellenerek Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi test edilmiş ve çeşitli Kuznets Eğrileri literatüre kazandırılmıştır. Son yıllarda bunlara bir yenisi eklenerek Malzeme Kuznets Eğrisi yaklaşımı literatürde yer almaya başlamıştır. Malzeme Kuznets Eğrisi yaklaşımı malzeme ayak izi ile kişi başına gayri safi yurtiçi hasıla arasında Ters U şeklinde bir ilişki olduğunu ileri sürmektedir. Bu çalışmada Malzeme Kuznets Eğrisi yaklaşımının geçerliliğinin test edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla G-7 ülkelerinin 1990-2016 dönemi verilerinden yararlanılmıştır. Modelin oluşturulmasında malzeme ayak izi değişkeni bağımlı değişken olarak ele alınarak malzeme kullanımına yönelik çevre kirlenmeleri toplu bir şekilde değerlendirilmiştir. Kişi başına GSYİH, kişi başına GSYİH2 ve kişi başına GSYİH3 seçilen bağımsız değişkenlerdir. Panel Durbin Hausman eşbütünleşme testi sonucunda değişkenler arasında Kuznets’in belirttiği gibi bir ilişki olmadığı tespit edilmiş ve böylelikle çalışma kapsamında Malzeme Kuznets Eğrisi yaklaşımı reddedilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Malzeme Ayak İzi
• Malzeme Kuznets Eğrisi
• Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi

References

1. Ali, S., Yusop, Z., Kaliappan, S. R., & Chin, L. (2021). Trade-environment nexus in OIC countries: fresh insights from environmental Kuznets curve using GHG emissions and ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(4), 4531-4548.
2. Ansari, M. A., Haider, S., & Khan, N. A. (2020). Environmental Kuznets curve revisited: An analysis using ecological and material footprint. Ecological Indicators, 115, 106416.
3. Bayar, Y., & Alakbarov, N. (2016). Corruption and foreign direct investment inflows in emerging market economies. Ecoforum Journal, 5(2), 303-308.
4. Canas, A., Ferrao, P., & Conceicao, P. (2003). A new environmental Kuznets curve? Relationship between direct material input and income per capita: evidence from industrialised countries. Ecological Economics, 46(2), 217-229.
5. Cerasa, A. (2008). CIPS test for unit root in panel data: further Monte Carlo results. Economics Bulletin, 3(16), 1-13.
6. Damette, O., & Seghir, M. (2013). Energy as a driver of growth in oil exporting countries?. Energy Economics, 37, 193-199.
7. De Bruyn, S.M., J.C.J.M. Van Den Bergh, & J.B. Opschoor, (1998) ‘Economic growth and emissions: reconsidering the empirical basis of environmental Kuznets curves’, Ecological Economics, 25 (2), 161–175.
8. Ekins (1997), The Kuznets curve for the environment and economic growth: examining the evidence, Environment and Planning A, Volume 29, 805 – 830.

9. Focacci, A. (2005). Empirical relationship between total consumption-GDP ratio and per capita income for different metals of a series of industrialised nations. International journal of environmental technology and management, 5(4), 347-377.
10. Grabarczyk, P., Wagner, M., Frondel, M., & Sommer, S. (2018). A cointegrating polynomial regression analysis of the material kuznets curve hypothesis. Resources Policy, 57, 236-245.
11. Grossman G.M. & A. Krueger (1995), Economic Growth and The Environmental, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May, 353-377.
12. Guzmán, J. I., Nishiyama, T., & Tilton, J. E. (2005). Trends in the intensity of copper use in Japan since 1960. Resources Policy, 30(1), 21-27.
13. Jaunky, V. C. (2012). Is there a material Kuznets curve for aluminium? Evidence from rich countries. Resources Policy, 37(3), 296-307.
14. Jaunky, V. C. (2014). Does a material kuznets curve exist for copper?. Economic Papers: A journal of applied economics and policy, 33(4), 374-390.
15. Kuznets, S. (1955), Economic Growth and Income Inequality, The American Economic Review , Mar., Vol. 45, No. 1, 1-28.
16. Lohani, P. R., & Tilton, J. E. (1993). A cross-section analysis of metal intensity of use in the less developed countries. Resources Policy, 19(2), 145-154.
17. Munasinghe, M. (1999), Is environmental degradation an inevitable consequence of economic growth: tunneling through the environmental Kuznets curve Ecological Economics, 89–109.
18. Müller-Fürstenberger, G., & Wagner, M. (2007). Exploring the environmental Kuznets hypothesis: Theoretical and econometric problems. Ecological Economics, 62(3-4), 648-660.
19. Nishiyama, T., (1996), Trends and short-term prospects for copper demand, Nonrenewable Resources 5 (3), 155–168.
20. Opschoor, J.B. (1996), Industrial Metabolism, Economic Growth an Institutional Chance, Redclift M. Ve G. Woodgate (Eds), The Internationaş Handbook of Environmental Sociology, 274-287. ISBN: 9781848440883.
21. Pezzey, J. (1992), Sustainable Development Concepts An Economic Analysis, World Bank Environmental Report Number 2, Report No: 11425.
22. Selden, T.M. & D. Song, (1994) Environmental quality and development: is there a Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions?, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27(2), 147–162.
23. Simonis, U. E. (1989). Industrial restructuring for sustainable development: Three points of departure, WZB Discussion Paper, No. FS II 89-401, Berlin.
24. Spangenberg, J.H. (2001), The Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Methodological Artefact? Author(s): Joachim H. Source: Population and Environment , Nov., Vol. 23, No. 2, Sustainability Nov.,175-191.
25. Stern, D.I. (2003), The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve World Development Vol. 32, No. 8, 1419–1439.
26. United Nations General Assembly. (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development: Our common future. Oslo, Norway: United Nations General Assembly, Development and International Co-operation: Environment.
27. Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel cointegration tests of the Fisher effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(2), 193-233. ) doi: 10.1002/jae.967
28. World Bank, World Development Report (1992). Development and The Environment, No: 10517. http://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/5975 (ET. 17.02.2022).
29. Zeren, F., & İşlek, H. (2019). Is per capita real GDP stationary in the D-8 countries? evidence from a panel unit root test. Selected Topics in Applied Econometrics, Peter Lang, Pieterlen and Bern, 67-86.